nnnik wrote:Then again all that doesn't affect our ability to define shapes.

But of course it does. Whenever you look at a picture of the earth, it's as if you are looking at it through a caleidoscope. If you were only able to see in 1D, you would define a square shape as a segment of a line, but that would just be too far off from reality wouldn't it?

Will throw this to support my stance that the earth has no definitive 3D shape (Keep in mind that spacetime is 4D):

To sum it up: due to the differences in the distribution of the mass in the planet, the actual shape of the earth is not even n-sphere-like when it's other dimensions are considered.

joedf wrote:What is real if we perceive and shape our own realities? :O

If we can truly perceive only a part of our surroundings, the more we can perceive of it the "more real" our own reality becomes.

So maybe if we can find a way to let our kids grasp in the more advanced concepts with ease we may someday have one of them write an AHK v10 script to connect to their neural networks and allow us to finally picture 4D or even n-D shapes in our own minds. And that would be "more real" i guess

@Gio in fact it has a defined 3D form if we break our space down to 3D and fgreatly simplify the matter.
If you want to go completely complex you might as well try to find a word that describes the form of the earth down to every atom or even lower.

nnnik wrote:@Gio in fact it has a defined 3D form if we break our space down to 3D and fgreatly simplify the matter.

But that is basically what flat-earth mentality is. The knowledge that the earth was "not flat, but round" has been cited over the centuries as a scientific breakthrough that allowed humanity to evolve many fields of knowledge. If we actually simplify things now that we see there is more to it just to get back to a confortable old concept, we will probably just block ourselves from further advancements. We are getting closer and closer to understand how neural networks work aswell as other concepts that could allow us make actual use of 4D shapes and it is time that we start spreading the newest concepts in hopes that a child will come that will be able to grasp them with ease and advance them further into new technologies. If you look at it in this perspective, it seems obvious that centuries from now it will be considered silly to describe a planet in it's 3D form as it is silly to describe it in a flat 2D form right now.

If you want to go completely complex you might as well try to find a word that describes the form of the earth down to every atom or even lower.

That is actually a straw man argument. The mere acceptance that the earth has an actual 4D (or n-D) shape is not the same as adding a ridiculous ammount of complexity to the matter like accounting for every atom in the planet. You have probably already understood the meaning of this 4D argument and we haven't really diven deeply into it. If the knowledge of the 4 dimensional spacetime seems to be of too much complexity, it is so only because we are used to think in 3D shapes ever since we were kids, but once you give yourself some time to diggest the concepts, it is really very natural to accept it, and it opens up your mind to a whole new understanding of celestial bodies. Grasping concepts require no advanced calculations, just a new mental disposition. It has been more than 60 years since Eistein passed away and most people cannot even understand what he was talking about. So next time your kids ask about the planet, take the opportunity to explain a little bit about the concepts of time and space and surely they will grow up to naturally grasp a much deeper perspective of how things work.

We evolved to move in 3d our brain mainly is for eating sleeping and taking care of ourselves and creating a group structure. Saying that it is very easy to think in 4d just shows me that you don't understand what you are actually talking about.
The fact that you didn't come up with a 4-dimensional shape immediately for our earth just shows that it is too complex.

our brain mainly is for eating sleeping and taking care of ourselves and creating a group structure.

So everything else not related to that is just too complex? Stick to flat-earth than. It makes the most sense based on everyday life since the ground is "seemingly flat everywhere". More so than a round shape.

Saying that it is very easy to think in 4d just shows me that you don't understand what you are actually talking about.

It IS very easy to understand the concepts required to accept that the earth has a 4D shape that does not fit the description of "globe". Complexity would come with calculating these shapes, but that is not required to discard the globe shape as an accurate description.

our brain mainly is for eating sleeping and taking care of ourselves and creating a group structure.

So everything else not related to that is just too complex? Stick to flat-earth than. It makes the most sense based on everyday life since the ground is "seemingly flat everywhere". More so than a round shape.

It seems you don't seem to be able to differ between me talking about myself and me talking about all of us. If you think that every human being on this planet will evolve to think in 4d in the next few 100 years then you are just plain naive.

Saying that it is very easy to think in 4d just shows me that you don't understand what you are actually talking about.

It IS very easy to understand the concepts required to accept that the earth has a 4D shape that does not fit the description of "globe". Complexity would come with calculating these shapes, but that is not required to discard the globe shape as an accurate description.

No energy is required to disreagard everything you will ever say as inaccurate.

our brain mainly is for eating sleeping and taking care of ourselves and creating a group structure.

So everything else not related to that is just too complex? Stick to flat-earth than. It makes the most sense based on everyday life since the ground is "seemingly flat everywhere". More so than a round shape.

It seems you don't seem to be able to differ between me talking about myself and me talking about all of us.

What is this whole talk about evolution and this "difference betwen me and everyone" thing now? Do you think you are superior to the adult a 5yo can possibly come to be? Like belonging to some form of "intellectually superior breed" or something? I can bet you otherwise: if a regular 5yo is regularly taught about abstract concepts such as spacetime early on in his life he will obviously grow up to be way superior to both you and me in terms of understanding this subject.

nnnik wrote:If you think that every human being on this planet will evolve to think in 4d in the next few 100 years then you are just plain naive.

I never said that. I said we should start spreading the word about the "new" discoveries instead of continuing to spread old world views such as flat-earth or globe-earth alone. This is sufficient to improve general knowledge about the subject over time, which may also result in some of these people coming up with new ideas that may expand currently existing fields of knowledge and develop new technologies.

nnnik wrote:

Saying that it is very easy to think in 4d just shows me that you don't understand what you are actually talking about.

It IS very easy to understand the concepts required to accept that the earth has a 4D shape that does not fit the description of "globe". Complexity would come with calculating these shapes, but that is not required to discard the globe shape as an accurate description.

No energy is required to disreagard everything you will ever say as inaccurate.

Your thoughts about your own superiority are highly delusional, but indeed, it is the most easy and efficient to adopt a stance that disregards everything ever as inaccurate.

?? I never claimed to be superior. -No energy is required to diregard everything humans will ever undiscover or say as inaccurate.
Anyways I'm done talking with you. You don't seem to want to understand me.
All I'm trying to say is that this will not happen due to the way humans are made.

All I'm trying to say is that this will not happen due to the way humans are made.

I understand your skepticism regarding the current limitations of humans. And please forgive me if i have been rude in my previous posts. I do not intend to cause any disconfort due to our different views. It is true that most of us are currently limited in our minds to what our eyes can see. My point, however, is that such limitations can and will be overcome and we have to start accounting for that when referring to the subject if our knowledge about it is enougth to do so. As we speak right now, many institutions and people around the world are working hard to create the tools which will allow us to "see" in 4D (or at least to account for the effects of spacetime distortion), and while we dont have yet something like "digitally adjusted telescopes" to do so, it is quite obvious that this will be a matter of time.

Furthermore, there are many models available right now which employ interesting methods to try and represent how 4D objects would look like. The tesseract is a well known model for a 4D cube which may or may not be a good representation, but hey, at least there is true work in progress!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract ... 8-cell.gif

End point is: Even if the future is not here yet, we have to give the credit to these advancements because they are in fact more accurate than old models (flat-earth, globe-earth, etc).

using that same info and pretending the earth was flat:
those ships drove up a 100+ meter tall wall of ice, broke past the heavily guarded "edge guards" (usa army/navy) preventing people from going to the "edge", and then starting driving or dragging their boat to the edge.

OR

the gps went wonky (public GPS's can be several meters off, in populated areas), or the ice melted/broke up during that time making a river / passage way, OR the ice is thinner at the edge and they used an ice-breaking boat to go inland, OR maybe some explorers/scientists decided to go exploring and bring the boats GPS with them incase anything happened, there location would be known.

also, there's more than 1 gps satellite, so ya, we can easily track more than 1 side of the planet at once.

Gio wrote:My point, however, is that such limitations can and will be overcome

It's one of two things: either "can" or "will". We are socially, historically and "materially" produced and freely produce ourselves, materially producing the society and history and, even though we cannot for example think separately the so-called "limited" "human" and "technique", one cannot say if this "other" perception will win out or at least coexist with the 3D one in the future.
By the bye, a question remains: who decide here ultimately that we have to see "differently" (in 4D)?
I mean when an artist invites us to "see" and "understand" differently ourself, others and the world, he manages it precisely by reminding inside us its vision and comprehension with its intrisic ethical dimension differently IMO.
But cheers you're pointing something very interesting Gio - alghought the idea of "progress" is the principle that underlies your statements IMO: 4D necessarily "overcome" the 3D or 2D like AHK v2 in comparaison with v1